Chapter 20: Capitalism and Automation

Automation has long been a double-edged sword. On the one hand it can often relieve human beings (and animals) of many dangerous, mind-numbing, or unsatisfying tasks. On the other hand, in a Capitalist economy it often eliminates jobs. If a company can pay once for a machine that will do the same work as ten people and pays for itself in five years, and if the machine is expected to function for twenty years, then the reinforcement is there to buy such a machine and lay off the ten replaceable people, who are then left without livelihood. There are then fewer jobs for them to find. We see this in many areas: self check-outs in stores, completely automated answering systems in which callers have no way to speak to an actual human being, offices that are only accessible online, and now even an entire store with no human employees. The trend started in the nineteenth century and continues in every industry today.

In and of itself, labor-saving technology can improve the quality of life for countless human beings by transforming tasks involving drudgery and long hours into simple, quick procedures. Examples abound: washing machines and dryers that save hours of hand-washing, motor vehicles that transform a 4-hour walk into a 10-minute drive; automated manufacturing that relieves thousands of workers of lifetimes of repetitive unchallenging labor; automated check-outs which reduce the need for cashiers and baggers. All of these are jobs rated low in job satisfaction surveys.

Unfortunately, under the Capitalist paradigm the benefits of automation become a threat to the livelihood of many people in the hardest struggling segments of the population. This creates a lose-lose situation for all but the top executives and investors in a company. If automation is implemented, there are fewer jobs. On the other hand, those jobs that are eliminated are usually sub-living-wage jobs; so in the absence of automation, these are the jobs that predominate. Employees are thus in a position to have to fight to keep sub-living-wage jobs, because the alternative is to have no job at all. The only reason why a large company would not automate as much as possible is if the price of paying salaries is lower than the price of automation or if popular pressure on legislators results in laws limiting automation where it reduces jobs.

Under a synergistic, peer-based paradigm, automation can be implemented with only beneficial effects. Money will be obsolete and not necessary for survival. All manufacturing, services, and distribution will be operated by and for the people, not for profit. Then, the primary function of automation will be to relieve people of tasks that most people would not want to do, while making workflow more swift and efficient.

Of course, sensitive and well-thought-out decisions need to be made regarding where, and how much, automation is beneficial and where it is not. For example, if automation of a given process would damage the environment or create an unhealthy or distressing result for human beings, then the decision will need to be made against it. Similarly, if the amount of production needed to meet the people's needs does not justify massive automation, then it would be wiser to hold back.

It goes without saying that one would not want to automate the arts, therapy, or medicine in general. Yet practitioners in these fields can be more effective with automated tools to improve and expand their ability to do their jobs. The important distinction between automation in Capitalist paradigms and in the more viable paradigms, is that under Capitalism it primarily benefits only those at the top of the economic pyramid at the expense of the rest of the population; whereas in a synergistic cooperative symbiotic paradigm, all people benefit and it occurs with their knowledge, consent and participation.

There is rarely the need for an absolute choice between automated processes and human processes. For example, in carpentry, cabinetmaking, precision machining and similar endeavors, the optimal configuration is most likely a dynamic interplay of human craftsmanship and automation.

There will always be a place for skilled carpenters, cabinetmakers, welders, machinists, etc. There is no substitute for the quality and aesthetics of handcrafted products, and there is much satisfaction in producing them. On the other hand, when thousands or millions of identical dowels, cams, rods, fittings, or other parts are needed, then automation would seem to be indicated, both because of the speed and reproducible precision of such processes and because most workers would find little satisfaction in hand-producing 10,000 identical parts repetitively. Yet there might be a few individuals whose talent and enjoyment come from performing a repetitive task and doing it well. Such individuals should not be displaced by automation.

Again, the important factor here is that such decisions will be made from the standpoint of what produces the best quality of life for each individual and for all of the people: the workers, the consumers (often one and the same), the community as a whole, and the environment.

In the new paradigms, we will be free to explore and apply automation in ways that allow people to work shorter hours and accomplish more, while having more time free for other endeavors. This is the vision that was propounded at the dawn of automation and yet rarely achieved due to the contrary reinforcements present in the Capitalist model.

Under Capitalism, such decisions are made from the standpoint of what produces the best "bottom line" - profits, growth, stock prices. This generally translates into degradation of living conditions for employees through job loss, making life harder for more people than it benefits.

In the absence of the artificially forced and hyper-inflated demand-production-consumption cycle imposed by Capitalist paradigms, automation will lead to reduced demands upon the time and energy of workers, translating info fewer hours of time needed to produce what is needed to keep life going. This will free people to accomplish more for self and community with a higher level of vitality and lower level of stress.

If judicious and appropriate application of automation can ensure that all necessary goods, services, and functions needed for thriving lives and community are produced in fewer work hours with reduced redundant drudgery, then automation can contribute significantly to the quality of human life. This process will be fine-tuned with feedback and shared decision-making involving all involved parties.

This is in sharp contrast to the situation in Capitalist environments, where more often than not automation leads to loss of jobs and livelihood, leading to more scarcity and friction over shrinking jobs and resources.